Gamebreakers

[Lanefan]

In all seriousness? The number of DMs who would tolerate that sort of play regularly at their table is quite low, in my experience.

Ah, but I'm not saying these things *have* to happen, or even that they will. I am, however, saying that they have to be able to happen.

I'm not saying its unheard of -- but low? Oh yes. Your list makes you come off as a griefer and non-team player.

Er...never heard the term 'griefer' before - I'll just assume by the general tone that it's not very complimentary, and move on.

I don't play the game just to be part of a machine. Sure, it's great to have a fully optimized lawful heroic party firing on all cylinders and operating at maximum peak efficiency cleaving through the bad guys like they were wheat. It's great...for about half an adventure, tops. After that it gets real boring real fast...

...a thought occurs to me here: could this boredom on a greater scale be causing people to focus more on mechanical advancement due to looking for something in the game to hold their interest? Hmmm...

I play the game to entertain and to be entertained.

Just sayin', Lan-NotsittingatmytableEVAR-Efan

You're welcome to sit at mine.

The most frequent gesture you make will probably be 'face-palm'.

The most frequent sound you make, however, will probably be laughter. And ain't that what it's all about, in the end?

Lan-"still wondering what a griefer is and whether it's made by combining a number of reefers"-efan

 

[SkredlitheOgre]

For me the biggest gamebreaker is people (players or DMs) not paying attention. Missing something I said once or twice isn't so bad, but if I'm having to repeat myself to one specific person over and over, that's a problem.

 

[broghammerj]

In no particular order:

1. A game that I describe as humor fantasy. Should be DnD but everything is funny, slapstick, etc. I don't mind Tales of the Floating Vagabond when I know that's the game I'm signing up for.

2. Anything that requires intense roleplaying to the point of almost acting.

3. Finally, inconsistent mini-less combat. Can't figure out what attacks I can use, where I'm at on the battlefield, who is the most dangerous threat, etc. Mostly falls on the DM who decides to run combat as he sees fit because only they know what is really going on.

 

[thedungeondelver]

The "Do you use XP" thread got me thinking -- because all the "level up when I say so" got me saying "no way" -- what would be a gamebreaker for you? What aspect of a campaign would have you saying "thanks but no thanks" even if everything else seemed right? Also, let's assume the people in the group are okay.

For me, aside from the aforementioned ad hoc XP thing, it would be an Evil campaign. I wouldn't mind a mercenary campaign, or an evil character or two, but a campaign centered around reprehensible PCs holds no interest for me.

Top of the heap for me, too, are "evil" campaigns. It's one matter to say "okay, you're all primarily thieves or work in collusion with the thieves' guild" but games where everyone's out to play their own worst alignment quickly degenerate into playing "red rover" with the Manson Family.

Too much handwaving. Maybe I'm a nut for counting copper out to make sure I can buy 10 not 9 iron spikes, but "just write it down, I assume you have the basic gear" and "oh I don't worry about whether you have horses, assume you do" and "You work your way through the dungeon and you find yourself in the chiefs' lair" (when no exploration, mapping, other encounters, etc. are done) AND "okay, level up, everybody"...DAMMIT those things make me nuts. Put them all in a campaign and it's not a campaign I wanna be in. I understand if you say "Hmm, okay, let's just go with 500 XP each for taking down the three ogres." - I've done that. But...this...I just...UNGH! I hate not knowing where I am on the damn ladder.

Campaigns that are "new" but seem to focus on past accomplishments of "veterans" of games with the GM/DM/whatevs. I mean, starting a game afresh and inviting folks in (me, for the example, it's happened before) and while I'm coming to grips with the system or setting this "new" game has two veterans whose actions and backstory are burying everyone else (because they're either characters that were in the same continued campaign world or just because they're buddies with the GM).

Corollary to that: the dreaded DM Mary-Sue.

Other stuff.

 

[Wik]

My list is pretty simple:

1) Brutal GMs. If it's one of those things where I'm just getting my PC killed for "poor play", and hindsight shows that there is no way I could've escaped it, I leave (for example, no matter which way you go, the DM hits you with an encounter of level + 5 or something... consistently).

2) "Mature" games. To me, RPing is a relaxed game, and I don't wanna explore "mature" themes. If the game dedicates "screen time" to scenes of rape, molestation, excessive torture, or stuff like that - I'm gone.

3) RIFTS. If we're playing RIFTS, or a stupid-ass system like that, I'm done. Also, if the GM has a big list of house rules, or their own made-up system, I'll give it a shot but will probably drop out pretty quickly.

4) GMs who try hard to make the game "realistic" but don't allow player input towards that goal. For example, a GM who assumes he knows more about combat wounds than, say, a Paramedic, or a high school grad GM who tries to argue history with me (history major). That stuff really bugs me.

 

[karlindel]

Here are the ones that come to mind, some of which others have already stated:

1. Character decisions and actions don't matter. I am fine with somewhat railroady games, as long as the characters are doing something that matters, and if they choose one option instead of another, their choice makes a difference. Similarly, if the characters do not do something, they should find out later what the consequences of that were (possibly it got worse, maybe someone else took care of it, maybe someone helped improve it but the underlying problem is still there).

2. Inconsistent rules, particularly ad hoc new rules to increase "realism". I'm fine with occasional rules changes, but the players need to know how the game is going to work in order to make decisions for their characters.

3. Evil campaigns and campaigns with evil characters. Evil campaigns may be acceptable for one shots or short story arcs, as long as everyone is on board. Similarly, I know a few people that I would trust to make an evil character with sufficient ethics to work with the party and add to the fun of everyone involved. That said, almost every evil character I have encountered was an excuse for the player to be a jerk, and consistently broke my suspension of disbelief as they were not killed or abandoned by their fellow party members because they were a PC. Note that I feel the same way about "neutral" (or even "good") characters played as evil, thieves in general (particularly those that steal from the party), and the like.

4. Purely hack and slash games. Beer and pretzel games can be fun, and I don't need deep roleplaying for every campaign I play in. However, I do need a bit more than find the monster(s), kill it, and take its stuff.

5. Overly graphic depictions of sex, torture, and the like. Roleplaying part of a date or the like is fine (and encouraged, I like to see characters acting like real people), ending with them going to a room and saying they are having sex is fine, as is mentioning that a character is scantily clad or even naked. Similarly, finding a torture room and describing the iron maiden, rack, and a victim of torture and saying that he has been tortured, is bleeding, and can't stand/walk/etc is enough, or the characters saying they are going to rough up a brigand they captured to try to get information out of them is enough, I don't need anything more graphic.